Written Answers Friday 17 February 2006

Scottish Executive

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr John Home Robertson (East Lothian) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive how many civil servants have been employed in its Rural Affairs Department in respect of Common Agricultural Policy subsidies to farmers; how many are required to administer the Single Farm Payments Scheme, and what savings are anticipated in (a) manpower and (b) cost.

Ross Finnie: CAP subsidies cover both production-related and agri-environmental measures and together provide some £500 million of support to Scottish farmers each year. For the financial year 2004-2005, the last full year for which statistics are available, 539.5 full-time equivalent civil servants were employed on the administration of these measures or around half of SEERAD’s overall staffing.

  It is not possible to give a figure of those working exclusively on the Single Farm Payment Scheme with complete accuracy because many of SEERAD’s staff deal with a number of support measures. For example, local office and professional agricultural staff service a number of different farm inspections, not just for the Single Farm Payment Scheme. As at 31 March 2005, however, there were 98 full-time equivalent civil servants in SEERAD’S headquarters dedicated to the management of CAP direct measures which includes the Single Farm Payment Scheme.

  In terms of savings, the development phase of CAP reform will continue until March 2006. From April 2006, when the new schemes should be fully established, my officials have estimated the result of implementing the all CAP reform measures (including Single Farm Payment Scheme) will be a reduction of the order of 70 full-time equivalent posts across Scotland. In cost terms, again from April 2006, my officials have estimated the result will be in savings of about £2.4 million. These savings are split between reduced IT costs and reduced SEERAD running costs. These savings will be available to fund other Executive Partnership agreement commitments, such as the introduction of land management contracts.

Justice

Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what its policy position is in respect of oversight of the use of DNA profiles exported from Scotland to the National DNA Database.

Cathy Jamieson: Management and oversight of the National DNA Database is a matter for the UK Government.

  Scottish interests are represented on the National DNA Database Board by the Deputy Chief Constable of Tayside Police, Willie Bald, who is a member of the board.

Justice

Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what information it has on the number of research projects which have been approved by the National DNA Database Board using DNA profiles or DNA samples collected in Scotland since 1995.

Cathy Jamieson: The Scottish Executive is aware of nine research projects that have been approved by the National DNA Database Board. None of these will have used DNA samples collected by Scottish police forces as the National DNA Database does not hold such samples. Information is not held regarding how many of the projects used DNA profiles collected by Scottish police forces.

Justice

Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive what legal advice it has sought in respect of the Information Commissioner's response to the Executive's consultation on the retention of DNA profiles of persons arrested but not convicted of any offence.

Cathy Jamieson: We can confirm that we have considered the UK Information Commissioner’s consultation response and it is not thought that the policy proposals set out in the consultation paper Police Retention of Prints and Samples: Proposals for legislation would be in breach of the fairness requirement of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Livestock

Mr Jim Wallace (Orkney) (LD): To ask the Scottish Executive what assessment it has made of the animal welfare implications of the decision by the Rural Payments Agency not to provide or support on-island facilities on Orkney for the processing of cattle under the Older Cattle Disposal Scheme.

Ross Finnie: The Rural Payments Agency took account of the relevant legislation governing the welfare of animals in reaching its decision. The transportation of farm animals must meet the requirements of the Welfare of Animals (Transportation) Order 1997. Similarly the slaughter of farm animals must be carried out in compliance with the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter & Killing) Regulations 1995 as amended.

Prison Service

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-21529 by Cathy Jamieson on 22 December 2005, how it assesses whether there is sufficient capacity within the open prison estate if it does not keep historical data in respect of prisoners held in a regular prison who should be held in an open prison.

Cathy Jamieson: I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service to respond. His response is as follows:

  The likely future number of prisoners we wish to hold in open conditions is one factor taken into account when we periodically assess the future size and shape of the prison estate. Prisoners are only considered eligible for the open estate after a rigorous individual assessment of their suitability for open conditions. I refer the member to the answer to S2W-20543 answered on 21 November 2005, for details. Places in the open estate are restricted and therefore a prisoner who meets the criteria set out in S2W-20543 must wait for an available place before he can transfer. The prospect of a transfer, once the person has met the relevant criteria, acts as an incentive to good behaviour.

  All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/search_wa.

Scottish Criminal Record Office

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the statement made by the then Minister for Justice on 22 June 2000 on the Scottish Criminal Record Office ( Official Report , c. 681) what the conclusions and outcome were of the report commissioned.

Cathy Jamieson: The then Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice’s statement concerned an inspection of the Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) Fingerprint Bureau by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC). The inspection began on 20 March 2000. On 22 June 2000 HMIC published an interim report in which he explained that expert advice given to him by Independent fingerprint experts was to the effect that the latent mark in the case was not that of Shirley McKie and that in his view the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau was "not fully effective and efficient".

  In his statement the Deputy First Minister made clear that the Scottish Executive would support the ACPOS Presidential Review which took responsibility for implementing HMIC’s recommendations. He also indicated that the ACPOS Presidential Review would consider the position of the four fingerprint officers concerned.

  In a statement on the same day the Lord Advocate indicated that an independent external check would be carried out in all current and future cases where fingerprint evidence was submitted by SCRO. In July 2001 the Lord Advocate decided that independent verification of SCRO fingerprint evidence was no longer required. In the previous 13 months over 1,700 cases were reviewed and in each case the accuracy of the identification was confirmed.

  In August 2000, the President of ACPOS and the Chairman of SCRO’s Executive Committee concluded that the four members of staff should be suspended on a precautionary basis. An ad hoc investigation and disciplinary procedure was carried out and in March 2002 the SCRO Scrutiny Committee announced that no disciplinary action would be taken. The four officers returned to work in on 9 April 2002 on a phased return basis, moving to full-time working from March 2003.

  The full HMIC report Scottish Criminal Record Office: The Fingerprint Bureau Primary Inspection 2000 (available on the Scottish Executive website) contained 25 recommendations and 20 suggestions and was published on 14 September 2000. The recommendations covered a range of issues including the need for improvements in training, testing and quality assurance measures, consideration of a national fingerprint service, move towards the introduction of a different evidential standard for fingerprints in Scotland, strengthening the administrative support for the fingerprint service and setting up a task force to take forward the changes recommended. All of the recommendations and suggestions have been successfully implemented.

  Following the recommendations in this report and the ACPOS Presidential Review, the SCRO Executive Committee, senior management at SCRO and the Scottish Executive have put in place an extensive programme of change management.

  This has included:

  Appointing a Head of Scottish Fingerprint Service in April 2001 to lead the work to establish the Scottish Fingerprint Service (SFS) based on 4 bureaux in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen. The model was approved in principle by the SCRO Executive Committee in June 2001 and rationalisation of the existing structure commenced. This work was completed in early 2002;

  Relocating SCRO and the Glasgow fingerprint bureau from Strathclyde Police Headquarters to Pacific Quay. This was intended to help create a distinct and independent corporate identity for SCRO and the SFS;

  The SFS uses the internationally accepted process of identification which conforms to the scientific principles of analyse, compare, evaluate, verify (ACE V) with verification by two fingerprint experts following the initial expert identification. Enhanced independent verification was introduced. Only after the independent verification procedure is complete will an identification be intimated to the police investigating officer and the Procurator Fiscal Service for their consideration in any court proceedings;

  Quality assurance and training officers have been in post at Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh bureaux since 2002. Within the Glasgow bureau the roles of quality assurance and training are separated with distinct staff employed in each area.;

  All four bureaux have been accredited to ISO9001:2000, an internationally recognised quality management system, since 2004. The system entails independent external audits conducted on a six-monthly basis and an internal audit regime managed by the bureau quality assurance manager;

  All fingerprint experts in the SFS Glasgow Fingerprint Bureau have been subject to external annual competency testing since 2001. This was introduced in the three other bureaux in 2002. The external testing is provided by Collaborative Testing Services, a USA-based forensic testing service;

  All experts have been subject to a continuous professional development programme since 2003. By 2004 86% of experts were accredited by the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners. To achieve expert status in Scotland all experts must be externally assessed as competent in their ability to explain their identifications. As part of the SFS common training policy this assessment is carried out by Centrex National Training Centre for Scientific Support (NTC), based at Durham. The NTC provide this external assessment for bureaux across the UK. Training in the non-numeric standard and court room practice has been in place since 2003;

  Court skills training sessions facilitated by Bond Solon, the UK’s recognised leading provider of training in this area, are attended by experts from across the four bureaux;

  National Guidance on Fingerprint Standards and Procedures was published in 2003;

  Robust arrangements for monitoring sick leave and providing management support for staff have been introduced. This includes access to an occupational health service and an external employee assistance programme provided by Independent Counselling and Advisory Service Ltd; and

  New governance arrangements for SCRO were put in place in April 2004 with the establishment of the Common Police Services Programme Board to oversee the existing common police services and to manage the transition to the establishment of the planned Scottish Police Services Authority.

  In the Scottish Criminal Record Office Primary Inspection 2004 published on 17 March 2005 (available on the Scottish Executive website), HMCIC welcomed the extent of progress since the Primary Inspection of the Glasgow Fingerprint Bureau in 2000 and he discharged all the outstanding recommendations and suggestions from that Inspection although he noted that further work was needed to achieve total integration of The Scottish Fingerprint Service. He further concluded that SCRO was overall efficient and effective.

  The Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, currently before Parliament, includes provisions to establish a new Scottish Police Services Authority to deliver a range of central services to the police service in Scotland. The SCRO and the SFS will be an integral part of that organisation which is due to become operational in April 2007.